It’s definitely too nuanced for Twitter, but there is something interesting about what counts as evidence, and how to make decisions when you don’t have all the evidence you’d like. RCTs if possible are great, but they’re not the *only* source of evidence.
The problem is masks for source-control is a community-wide intervention, controlling for egress, not ingress. So the RCT design wouldn't make sense with individual level measurement (and why a lot previous health-care research isn't applicable despite WHO being stuck on them).
-
-
But if you managed to introduce enough random variation in treatment intensity at the workplace-level, you could look at workplace outbreaks as an outcome. Power likely a problem
-
Maybe. But also note the k overdispersion that's become clearer. You're going to get a lot of confounding by super-spreader events. Plus evidence that masks increase distancing (will overstate mask effects). Very hard. But we can look at countries that masked up early probably.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I would NOT ever advocate this, but if you distributed masks, say, in one refugee camp and not the other at similarly early in an outbreak, you might get RCT-compatible design, but this is not ethical by any stretch so no no no. So, maybe natural experiments at country level?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.